Balkaar

-

That's a rich bit of hypocrisy coming from this forum's most notorious merchant of meanness.

Has anyone considered that a lot of the so called 'Sikhs' marrying other 'Sikhs' can hardly be said to be Sikhs either? There are plenty of Punjabis who are wed in Guru Ghars who have no idea about their professed faith, but whose unions are not scrutinized at all simply because the participants both have Punjabi names. Why is this not reacted to with outrage in the manner of an Anand Karaj involving a non-Sikh who is also a non-Punjabi?

Never claimed to be a soorma, not like you, fauji of Akaal Purakh.

It is an abuse of the sanctity of the Guru Ghar for a Sikh to wed a non-Sikh within its confines. On this point I have to disagree with the OP. However, the guy has something of a point, and you are in fact an illustration of it. Singhs these days really do give it the large by strutting about in neel bastar calling themselves things like 'Akalifauj', under the apparent misapprehension that they are accomplished fighters just because they learn to twirl a tegha around at gatka class every weekend. In actual fact these people have never been in a war and haven't the faintest notion of what it means to be a fauji.

The good pastor should be imprisoned for the mass mental retardation of his viewers.

2 paragraphs isn't enough for the man who managed to outsmart British Imperialism. However I'd bet they devoted considerably more words to that fool Gandhi, whose policy of do nothing accomplished exactly nothing, but is unjustly revered as one who defeated the Empire.

This dream very nearly came to fruition when the Sikhs occupied Delhi, led by the Ahluwalia Misl. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia made a huge mistake when he accepted the treaty offered by the deposed Mughal Shah, and vacated the Red Fort in Delhi. Who knows but that in time, the Sikhs may have come to shape the destinies of billions. But now nobody even remembers this event, or considers what might have been. These nefarious Indians have done one hell of a job whitewashing our people out of the history of the Indian subcontinent.

-

The birds will commence their singing at the beginning of Amrit vela. Listen out for birdsong.

What is the point of Islam if you say "Muhammad couldn't have known better, because nobody else did"? Then what was he even for? The purpose of a messenger/prophet is to effect change in the world around them. Our Guru Sahibaan didn't deploy that sort of logic, they didn't excuse the evils of casteism and sexism because they happened to be the prevailing standards of the time. Their knowledge of good and evil was timeless, as it would be if one was truly a man of God, not trammeled by the confines of time and geography, which I consider to be the hallmark of a fraudster and religious racketeer. Let us assume for a moment that the Islamic representation of Allah is true. When one considers that the God of Islam had something to say about everything, even such menial things as plucking one's eyebrows, it begs the question of why the rape of children is not mentioned or prohibited at all in his Koran (his literal word ad verbatim). I think one can safely assume that he did not object to it, especially since Muhammad, his last prophet, the 'insaan-al-kamil', himself raped a child. If Allah objected to this at all he'd probably have raised the issue during one of their intermittent communications. He didn't because he was ok with it. If child-rape was permitted by Allah then, it would be permissible today as well. God never changes his mind, being omniscient, the resolutions he provides are always the best ones.

Brother I'd be wary of conflating leftist/liberal values with atheist values as though they are the same thing. They're not, really. Most leftist demagogues in the UK are Islamic apologists, to be sure, but you'll find that the leading luminaries of modern atheism like Professor Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens, are all categorically opposed to Islam. Active atheists tend to be opposed to religion, this includes Islam. True, many leftist appeasers of Islam happen to be atheists themselves, but they are of the passive kind who don't actually object to religion in others. Their lack of faith is not incidental to their politics. My own father is an atheist Punjabi, but he himself dislikes Islam and still feels animated by a form of powerful tribal loyalty towards the Sikh people.

You're right Kira. I don't compare my children to others, I treat women as my equals, I don't despise Mazbhis and I don't drink. You will hate me even more after you read this, but I've single-handedly broken a continuous line of alcoholics that goes back centuries. I am a disgrace to my noble Punjabi ancestors. Please. Help me.

I'm single and childless right now, but I do look forward to being a father one day. I've no doubt that I will adore my future kids, and that I'll retain my distaste for those of them who aren't loosed from my own loins.

-

LOL A child who isn't quite as stupid or gullible as all the other mites milling about him, I should think. Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with their dependence on gaming. I'm kind of consumed myself by The Witcher 3. Nice powers by the way Kira

I wouldn't say any place in Western Europe is particularly unsafe for a Gursikh. You'll get the occasional funny look from some fetid Frenchman or imperious Italian, but whatever. Paris is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, as is Rome, and I couldn't recommend the Swiss Alps any more highly. I personally find Spain to be outrageously overrated, I can't fathom how some Brits become so hysterical at the prospect of holidaying in what is undoubtedly the backwater of W. Europe. If you're not from the UK, you might try London or Edinburgh.

Good points, children can definitely become very intelligent if they wish to be because information is so accessible. But it seems that most of them are simply content to exist as miniature lobotomites and p155 away their formative years playing xbox. Lol, what was the nature of your superpower?

A non-Amritdhari has not technically made a promise to adhere to the rehat maryada, as a Khalsa has. Therefore they cannot really be punished for a kurehat, which arises when one violates the rehat. Ideally though, all Sikhs should refrain from committing a bujjar kurehat, irrespective of whether or not they have received Pahul. No good can come of any of them.

What do you mean by "deserve those deeds"? That would imply that they had no freewill, no choice in the matter. And if they had no choice, then they could hardly have chosen to commit such a wrongdoing as would merit this punishment, could they? By your logic, a paedophile would be trapped in an endless cycle of molesting kids, because his fiddling with children in a previous life condemns him to fiddle with children in his next life, as per karma. Karma doesn't dictate EVERYTHING you do, the idea of freewill cannot be accommodated if that happened to be the case.

-

I didn't think I could forgive Roald Dahl after he attacked beards with such brutality in The Twits, but that extract has caused him to soar in my estimation. I welcome him once more into my heart as a kindred spirit. Thank you for sharing Jio What I find particularly astonishing is that it somehow manages to be symptomatic of both the culture of pushy parents/incitement to achievement that you describe, and its exact opposite, namely, the culture of 'every child is a winner/ deserves a trophy just for competing'. It seems there is no escaping this silly notion. I also feel like I've fallen victim to very premature curmudgeonhood. I'm actually glad though, there's way too much sickly sweetness fluttering and tinkling about in the world these days and I like to think I'm on the other side of the scale helping to maintain the proper balance of things. What's more, I'm in excellent company.

Yes but this insaaf will only be dispensed after this hypothetical serial killer dies. That could take several decades, during which he would be free to brutally and ritualistically murder as many people as he desired, if the world operated according to your wacky worldview. You've completely missed the point yet again.

A while ago I was criticizing the notion that the elderly ought be thought of as wise because of their decrepitude. I've been considering the other age demographics and I think the notions surrounding children are just as rife with misrepresentations and fantasies as those hovering around their grandparents. I'll admit to some apprehension here, knowing that a lot of people here are probably parents, and how defensive parents can be where their offspring are concerned. I've noticed that a lot of parents are totally delusional about the extent of their childrens' intelligence or ability. A lot of simpering mothers have boasted to me about the fact that their sprog is capable of buttoning his own overalls at the age of 12 months, and that this is clearly the rudiment of some embryonic genius which will probably manifest itself in later years as a cure for cancer. I can't be the only one who is totally unimpressed and unmoved by this, can I? If a child was writing symphonies aged five like Beethoven was then I'd be the first to concede their potential, but something as innocuous as tying one's shoelaces, irrespective of age, is never impressive and shouldn't elicit such praise. Children also receive ovation for the potency of their imaginations, which has always been confusing. When George R.R Martin or Hillary Mantel are weaving together intricate and original universes full of complex political intrigue and subtly rendered characters, I don't see why a slobbering juvenile receives such adulation for drawing a lion in rollerskates, as though such a concept would be inconceivable to anyone else. There’s also the idea that children are pure and innocent, little angels and little darlings as yet unschooled in the ruthlessness of the world. It's strange to think that people who were once children themselves can entertain such saccharine naivety. The primary school playground operates under a system of politics similar to the one prevalent in high-school corridors, albeit more simplified. One might even call it more animalstic/unevolved. All the features of the latter find an expression in the former, the exclusive cliques, the ostracized outcasts sitting alone in some well-shadowed spot, violence, bullying, et cetera. Children simply are not more attuned to morality. Our ideas of right and wrong are accretions from the societies we inhabit, from the figures whom we consider to be authorities. A child will never stop stealing biscuits if nobody tells them that it is wrong. Children seem to me to be far more susceptible to wrongdoing because societal ethics haven't really had enough time to make an impression upon them. I'd be interested to hear the sangat's thoughts on the subject.

Smoking anything is a bujjar Kurehat. Sukha however was only to be taken in times of war by Nihang Singhs, those among their samparda who take it for purposes of leisure or philosophical enrichment are abusing it.